SynthesisMedicine2025
Effectiveness of regorafenib in second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of KCNQ1OT1 / miR-27b-5p in Modulating Dihydrolipoamide S-acetyltransferase (DLAT): Insights into Cuproptosis in Hepatocellular carcinoma.Biological trace element research · 2026Article
- Targeting Kinase Suppressor of Ras 1 (KSR1) for Cancer Therapy.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following sorafenib failure, regorafenib has been used as an initial second-line drug. It is unclear the real efficacy and safety of sorafenib-regorafenib sequential therapy compared to placebo or other treatment (cabozantinib or nivolumab or placebo) in advanced HCC.
methodsFour electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Ovid) were systematically searched for eligible articles from their inception to July, 2024. Included articles were selected based on strict eligibility criteria. Review Manager 5.4 software were performed for statistical analysis.
resultsTen studies with 2349 HCC patients of whom 1370 received regorafenib treatment, and 979 underwent cabozantinb, nivolumab or placebo were selected for meta-analysis. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis found regorafenib could significantly prolong overall survival (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.29, P = .02) than other treatment (cabozantinib or nivolumab or placebo) in second-line treatment of HCC following sorafenib failure. No significant difference in progression-free survival (SMD = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.13 to 0.06; P = .53), overall response rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.24 to 1.47; P = .26), disease control rate (RR = 1.23; 95% CI = 0.7 to 2.16; P = .48) between 2 groups. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that nivolumab has better overall response rate results than regorafenib (RR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.61; P < .0001).
conclusionsCompared with other treatment (cabozantinib or nivolumab or placebo), regorafenib seemed to be more effective for patients with HCC who have not responded to initial sorafenib treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.